If you like this, please share:

Like this:

One Comment

I was interested in his justification, since I am a proponent of unisex restrooms, which, of course, would totally negate this “problem”. However, I saw this:

He says it’s the duty of the House of Commons to protect children from any exposure or harm that will come from giving men this kind of access

And I know damn well that’s the code for “Jesus told me to trample someone’s freedom”.

Because if the best argument you can come up with is that you need to protect some unknown cabal of children from unspecified harm, it is guaranteed you’re talking about a completely unnecessary, completely unjustifiable, and thoroughly egregious restriction on personal liberty.

It’s never “for the children”. It’s always “for personal bias”. The simple fact here is that Anders would feel uncomfortable because a man in a dress might have a bigger willy than he does.